Plaintiff: The Wrongdoer

Plaintiff the wrongdoer is one of the general defences given under the law of torts. In the case of General Defence, a person will not be held liable for the actions if it comes under the general defences. The defendant's legal rights and interests are safeguarded by applying these defences. If the defendant successfully establishes a defence, they will not be held accountable for any harm or injury caused to the plaintiff; nonetheless, the plaintiff must prove their case.

Meaning of General Defences

The defendant is responsible when a plaintiff files a lawsuit against them alleging a specific tort or breach of a legal right that results in legal damages and the plaintiff successfully establishes the elements of the lawsuit.

However, there are a few situations in which the defendant can assert defences to absolve himself of accountability. The general tort defences listed below are these.

Purpose of General Defences

The primary objective of general defences in tort law is to provide a fair and reasonable division of rights between the plaintiff and the defendant. To protect the defendant's legal rights and prevent them from being held accountable for events beyond their control, several defences are required.

A framework for evaluating whether the defendant behaved appropriately in the specific situation is also provided by these defences.

Types of General defences

Private Defences

In tort situations, the most common general defence is private defence. When the defendant, while in urgent danger, uses reasonable force to defend his body, property, or the property of another, and has no time to report the occurrence to the right authorities, it is deemed a private defence. The harm inflicted ought to be suitable given the situation.

Volenti non-fit injuria

The volenti non-fit injuria defence contends that the plaintiff has voluntarily accepted the risk of damage or injury. The defendant can argue that since the plaintiff took the action voluntarily and accepted the risk involved, there is no way to make up for any harm that comes from it.

Essentials of Volenti non-fit injuria

• The danger of damage or injury has to have been freely and willingly accepted by the plaintiff.

• The type and degree of the danger must have been known to the plaintiff.

• The plaintiff must have accepted the danger.

In the case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

In this case, The defendant's track hosted an automobile racing event that the plaintiff attended. The plaintiff was hurt when two automobiles crashed during the race and one of them was thrown into the spectator area. The plaintiff knew there would be a chance of injury, thus the court determined that she willfully accepted the risk of going to the race. Consequently, the plaintiff's injuries absolved the defendant of any liability.

Inevitable Accident

The defence of an inevitable accident states that there was no way to have avoided the damage or injuries. The defendant may contend that they shouldn't be held accountable as the harm or injury was caused by unforeseen circumstances.

Essentials of Inevitable Accident

• The damage or injury sustained was not anticipated.

• The injury or harm sustained resulted from unforeseen events.

In the case of Stanley v. Powell

In this case, The plaintiff and the defendant were both taking part in a pheasant shooting competition. The bullet struck the plaintiff, seriously injuring her, after ricocheting off an oak tree while the defendant was firing at a pheasant.Since the incident was deemed to be an inevitable accident, the defendant was declared not guilty.

Act of God

Anything that is defended as an act of God usually means that some uncontrollable natural phenomenon caused harm or injury. The defendant can argue that since the harm or injury was caused by an act of God, they shouldn't be held responsible.

Essentials of Act of God

• The damage or injury was caused by uncontrollable natural occurrences.

• The injury or harm could not have been avoided by the defendant.

Statutory Authority

To effectively defend their statutory authority, the defendant must demonstrate that their acts were permitted by law. The defendant may argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for any losses or harm that occurred because their actions were lawful.

Essentials of Statutory Authority

• The defendant was operating under a statute, and

• the defendant's actions were permitted by law.

Plaintiff the Wrongdoer

The law absolves the defendant in cases where the plaintiff performed an illegal act, acted improperly, or was careless in using due diligence. This justification stems from the Latin adage "ex turpi causa non oritur action" (no action follows from an immoral cause). Thus, in tort proceedings, a plaintiff's illegal act may provide a powerful defence.

This adage expresses the belief that an individual cannot file a lawsuit for their misconduct. In tort proceedings, if the plaintiff's claim is founded on illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy conduct, defendants commonly utilize it as a defence. Consequently, a plaintiff's unlawful act may provide a good defence in tort cases.

This adage applies to contract law, restitution law, property law, trust law, and tort law as well. If the adage is implemented correctly, it becomes an absolute barrier to healing. Though it covers both immoral and criminal behaviour, it is most often known as the illegality defence. Despite being hardly employed, this defence has long been discussed.

In the case of Pitts v. Hunt

In this case, There was an eighteen-year-old rider. He suggested that his sixteen-year-old acquaintance drive while intoxicated. However, an accident claimed the life of the rider of their motorcycle in an instant. After suffering severe injuries, the pillion rider filed a lawsuit against the deceased person's family to obtain compensation. Since he was the one who caused the wrong in this instance, his plea was denied.

Essentials of the Defence

• The hurt or injury sustained had to be caused in part by the plaintiff.

• There must be a substantial plaintiff contribution to the harm.

Application of the Defence

The "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" rule applies where the plaintiff's claim stems from an unlawful or immoral act. The guiding principle is based on the notion that the court should not reward a plaintiff who has suffered injury as a result of their own immoral or illegal activities since doing so would be seen as approving or encouraging illegal behaviour.

Why was the principle adopted?

In the seventeenth century, the concept of "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" was first introduced by English common law. During the period, widespread deception and fraud prompted the development of the notion. The courts forbade anyone involved in unethical or illegal behaviour from profiting from it. The idea was also to deter people from acting immorally or illegally by preventing them from getting justice if their actions hurt other people. The idea was seen as a way to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and encourage social order.

It is necessary to ascertain the connection between the plaintiff's wrongdoing and the damages he has incurred to establish this defence. If the harm he has experienced is solely due to his actions, then he is not entitled to pursue legal action.

Case Laws on Plaintiff: The Wrongdoer

In the case of Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand

In this case, The trains on the railway line built under a statutory provision caused loud noise and vibrations that reduced the plaintiff's property value. The defendant's complete defence was established when the court decided that the construction was permitted by statute, absolving the defendant of all liability for damages.

In the case of Bird v. Holbrook

In this case, The plaintiff was granted compensation for the harm he endured as a result of spring guns that were positioned in the defendant's garden without prior notice.

Conclusion

Plaintiff the Wrong Doer is one of the general defences under the law of Torts. According to this Tort, in cases where a plaintiff is a wrongdoer in such a case, he will only be liable for his acts. General Defences under the Law of Torts means a person will not be liable for his actions under the exceptions like Private Defence, Statutory Authority, Act of God, Volenti non-fit injuria and inevitable Accident under these conditions a person will not be liable for the acts.